1984 or 1989
How quickly will commonsense Democrats stage a revival?
Are we in 1984 or 1989?
This is not (just) a pop culture reference to a future that could be a blend of Taylor Swift and George Orwell. It is a shorthand for understanding how quickly and aggressively a faction of commonsense Democrats can bring the party back from the wilderness.
After Reagan’s dominant 1984 re-election, Democrats could not get back on track in time for the next election.
By 1989, a faction of moderate Democrats responded to the party’s third consecutive presidential defeat with a revival led by charismatic moderates pitching commonsense values, with policies to match.
The terrain on which politics was contested had shifted, from the postwar New Deal consensus to the era of “big government is over.” As we enter the second decade of Trump, the ground has shifted again. You can’t scroll through The New York Times or a think tank feed without seeing some version of “Are We on the Cusp of a New Political Order?”
These debates will rage for weeks. But recall our foundation piece on how, for moderates, Organizing Beats Debating. The Democratic Leadership Council revival was not only the winning of a debate. It was building. We need Popularism, but for Organizing (not just strategy).
Speaking of building, we got some good feedback from Thursday’s piece on the Second Wave Resistance. Including something we missed: we did not define “The Resistance”, and failed to make the vital distinction between The Groups of professional progressive nonprofits and the army of volunteers who stepped up to build organizations, engage neighbors, donate to candidates, and run themselves.
While the nonprofit advocacy groups moved the party way more to the left than would be thought responsible for political professionals, the volunteers were the opposite. For more info there, check out Lara Putman’s classic Vox piece, The progressive base is more pragmatic than you might think. Because “door knockers know that on the issues, Democratic voters are far from uniform.”
This includes one of our favorite findings: engaging swing voters makes one more pragmatic. We covered this more in Empathy for the Middle, something we aren’t seeing a lot of online as pundits blame the voters (or worse, demographic groups). WelcomePAC’s first ever media appearance, in Slate at the end of 2021, was in part about “why empathy is such a big deal” for moderates. It is one of our team’s four values. And we need to practice it even more now, not just to win voters back but to partner with progressives who know it is a pragmatic faction that wins. More empathy is good.
Back on the litmus test front, I’ve got a new piece out in CommonWealth Magazine this morning on The Politics of Subtraction:
The current coalitional heavyweights in the national Democratic Party focus too much on enforcing policy litmus tests that narrow the coalition, and do not focus enough on improving governance of blue states. These are the politics of subtraction, and the policies subtracting population and power from blue states.
Read all of The Politics of Subtraction here.
This is a theme that
has been hitting. Here’s his take on the solutions, most recently in A tale of two machines:These two approaches to moderation are distinct projects in terms of the target audience, and there is even, at times, some tension between them. The things that help Jared Golden win re-election wouldn’t necessarily make for a strong reform agenda for Massachusetts. But I think they are, on balance, mutually re-enforcing. Doing a better job of making California and New York growth-oriented jurisdictions will naturally make Democrats seem less like a party for rich snobs who don’t mind high taxes and bad services because they’re insulated from the struggles of daily life. And making the party more of a big tent for everyone who cares about poor people and about women’s rights means a healthier intellectual environment, one in which we can debate policy and reform institutions that need reforming.
Addressing both will not be easy. But things get easier with Flywheel Optimism.
May it be 1989 again soon.
PS big thanks to our new paid subscribers from this week! We will have more paid-only opportunities soon as we enhance our programming to identify more ways we can win the middle together. Please consider upgrading to paid today.
Excellent piece Liam and I agree.
My one beef is that WelcomeStacks pre election stance was largely about "Kamala is moderate". Although, I agree that she campaigned somewhat moderate, her perception was not that of moderate, a reasonable claim being that she was the third most progressive Senator during her tenure, supported M4A, taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners, Green New Deal (note I am an environmentalist and supported IRA, but GND was not just environment but the wish list for everything under the sun from progressives), school bussing, reparations.
Given her history as well as being in on the Biden administrations leftward pivot once elected as a moderate (if they had emulated Clinton with a pivot center, that might have given them a second term), she had to play defense by distancing herself from many of things, but didn't. Most unpopular was the Biden record on immigration and record border crossings, which they shut the door on in June 2024, but the argument that they were closing the border fell flat as this last move was more of political expediency.
When Harris was asked on FOX whether there was anything the administration would have done differently, her answer was "I can't think of anything"- imo the dumbest comment imaginable. It was a golden opportunity to distance herself from any of the unpopular Democratic platforms particularly allowing anybody claiming asylum into the country causing- a defacto open border.
So I get where Welcomers may be less free than me to grouse about the candidates but I dont think Harris was a moderate historically and she did little to disavow the further left positions she took and the Biden administration took.